Talk:Net promoter score/Archives/2011

External link to blog post

Fairsing, how is it that a link to a blog post evaluating NPS is "link spam"? I'm recommending that this link stay in place. Thekohser 17:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume good motives here -- Thekosher no doubt believes that the link to his Blog posting on the topic is relevant and helpful to Wikipedia readers. But it is in general violation of Wikipedia policy: See: Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid, particularly points number 11 (no linking to a site you yourself maintain), 12 (generally avoid linking to Blogs), and the following paragraph. As stated there: "a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site" to promote neutrality. If you believe your Blog post is particularly relevant to the topic, good Wikipedia practice is to open a discussion on the talk page of the article and allow other Wikipedians to make that determination. So when I saw the link added by the Wikipedian who runs the blog, I removed it as it violates that Wikipedia policy. I believe that doing so was a proper action.

What I did poorly, however, was refer to the link as "link spam," in my edit summary. "Link spam" is a technically not the most proper label here because link spam in the conventional sense is usually added to WP by a bot, not an individual. A better (although perhaps overly lengthy) edit summary would have been: "Remove link to blog in violation of WP policy because it was added by the editor who maintains the blog."

In any case, if other Wikipedians feel strongly that the blog posting is especially relevant and useful (despite the general guideline that links to blogs should be avoided), they can add back the link. As it stands, I will again remove the link and politely request that the blog author refrain from adding it back again himself. For the record, if a discussion about the actual usefulness of linking to this blog post does occur, I will recuse myself from that discussion and accept community consensus to avoid the appearance of bias given that my original edit was reverted. Fairsing 20:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You, Sir, are a scholar and a gentleman. I concur with your thorough assessment, and I will abide by the removal of said link. If anyone else starts a " consensus vote" on the matter, I too will recuse myself. ==> Thekohser 20:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the above comment to remove the external link. We've given Gregory Kohs enough free advertising. --Gmaxwell 04:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Customer experience management

What is a "customer experience management" company? Can someone please explain this? What are the leading companies in this "field" of business? Is this just a fancy name for a CRM consulting firm? Fairsing 14:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe a "customer experience management" company is typically a software company. One that I have seen is Satmetrix Systems, which was a co-developer of the Net Promter concept. They provide software and services to help companies collect, report and take action on customer feedback at various customer contact points. --Rgmarkey 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Promotional

I'm extremely surprised how promotional this article is. I'm going to edit it to hold to rather strict interpretations of WP:NOT and WP:SPAM, hoping no one will take it personally. --Ronz 03:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

While cleaning up, I noticed the "Article in Harvard Business Review" link is bad. Anyone know what the article title is? --Ronz 03:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Stumbled upon some criticism [1] while looking for the article. --Ronz 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, very promotional. The NPS score is a good quick indicator for customers satisfaction and loyalty, but in order to understand strenghts & weaknesses, you still need a detailed market research study describing the various aspects & drivers of satisfcation and loyality. 62.225.112.236 14:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I just wanted to drop in my input as to the "spamminess" of this entry.

I myself found it very informative. The phrase "net promoter" came up in a meeting at my company today, and the concepts were discussed as reasons why we should concentrate on customer service. I looked it up on Wikipedia to get more information.

The article itself should stay. It was indeed informative (even though it seems some of the details may need correcting after reading the talk page). I found it mostly NPOV, though there were a couple of sentences which seemed a little POV (references to the "right" way, etc.) It may benefit to add some criticisms, and edit a few sentences to make them more objective.

As a concept, it IS in fact spreading as a meme in the real world. It is not merely tied to the Bain firm or the book or the consultants. People like me are hearing about it and becoming curious and needing this information.

lunaverse 22:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Net Promoter Score research

(from my talk page [2] --Ronz 16:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

Dear Ronz --

I am not certain how best to communicate with you. I apologize if this is an inappropriate format.

A colleague from my informed me that research I co-authored has been added to the current Net Promoter Score page. I do not believe it appropriate that I edit this page, but there are several things that should be modified and added. I am writing to you because I noticed that you edited the Net Promoter Score page earlier.

First, and most important to me is that "I" did not do the research (as appears on the page), my co-authors and I did the research. My name should never be listed without my co-authors. The citation for the work discussed is:

Timothy L. Keiningham, Bruce Cooil, Tor Wallin Andreassen, and Lerzan Aksoy (2007), “A Longitudinal Examination of Net Promoter and Firm Revenue Growth,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 71, no. 3 (July), 39-51.

There are two key findings from the research reported in the Journal of Marketing:

1) We did not find Net Promoter to be a good predictor of growth.

2) We found very strong evidence of research bias in the research reported by Reichheld in support of Net Promoter. In particular, we were able to replicate a subset of Reichheld's reported data for his best case scenarios and compare it to a metric he claimed was examined and found to have a 0.00 correlation to growth, the ACSI. Our findings clearly show that when using Reichheld’s own data, Net Promoter wasn’t superior to the ACSI. It is difficult to imagine a scenario other than research bias as the cause of this finding. This is a serious problem. We expect published research to be free of bias in management science, just as we do in all other fields of study.

Because of the importance of the work, the Journal of Marketing is making the paper available at the following URL: http://www.atypon-link.com/AMA/toc/jmkg/71/3

The Journal of Marketing is also featuring the article on its blog (one per issue) at: http://appserver.marketingpower.com/blog/journalofmarketing/

Also, we thought you might like to know that Managing Service Quality has just released another paper by the authors that investigates other aspects of the original Net Promoter research, entitled, "The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in Predicting Customer Retention, Recommendation, and Share-of-Wallet."

This research examines different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics and tests their relationship to customer loyalty behaviors. The goal was to test the robustness of the customer-level analysis conducted by Reichheld and Satmetrix, which served as the foundation of their Net Promoter research. Contrary to Reichheld's assertions, the results indicate that recommend intention alone will not suffice as a single predictor of customers' future loyalty behaviors. Use of multiple indicators instead of a single predictor model performs significantly better in predicting customer recommendations and retention.

Because of the importance of the work, Managing Service Quality is making the paper available for free for download at the following URL: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&contentId=1615783

The citation for the work is: Timothy L. Keiningham, Bruce Cooil, Lerzan Aksoy, Tor Wallin Andreassen, and Jay Weiner (2007), “The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in Predicting Customer Retention, Recommendation and Share-of-Wallet,” Managing Service Quality, vol. 17, no. 4, 361-384.

These findings, taken in conjunction with the findings of our research reported in the Journal of Marketing regarding the relationship between Net Promoter and growth, call into question the robustness of the entire analysis conducted by Reichheld.

Additionally, we thought you might like to know that an article regarding this research is available from Colloquy magazine at the following URL (subscription is free): http://www.colloquy.com/article_view.asp?uid=4030

Finally, a paper by Pingitore and colleagues that appeared in Marketing Research examines other aspects of Net Promoter research. I am unable to upload the file to you, so I am providing the basic information contained in the Business Source Premier database:

Title:

    The Single-Question Trap

Authors:

   Pingitore, Gina1 gina.pingitore@jdpa.com
   Morgan, Neil A.2 namorgan@indiana.edu
   Rego, Lopo L.3 lopo-rego@uiowa.edu
   Gigliotti, Adriana4 adriana.gigliotti@jdpa.com
   Meyers, Jay5 jay.meyers@jdpa.com

Source:

   Marketing Research; Summer2007, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p9-13

Abstract:

   This article examines the strengths and limitations of the net promoter score (NPS) concept from a practitioner's perspective.  
   The data show that the scaling of the intention-to recommend question is not critical and that the NPS is not the only net 
   customer feedback metric that correlates with financial performance. In fact, no net customer feedback measures are 
   significantly better predictors of financial performance than the continuous satisfaction and loyalty scales from which they are
   computed.

Author Affiliations:

   1Chief research officer, J.D. Power and Associates, Westlake Village, Calif.
   2Associate professor of marketing, Indiana University Kelley School of Business, Bloomington
   3Assistant professor of marketing, University of Iowa Tippie College of Business, Iowa City
   4Senior manager, J.D. Power and Associates, Westlake Village, Calif.
   5Director, J.D. Power and Associates, Westlake Village, Calif.

Persistent link to this record [NOTE THIS LINK IS ONLY ACCESSIBLE FOR EBSCOHOST SUBSCRIBTERS:

   http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=25930397&site=bsi-live

Database:

   Business Source Complete

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

-- Tim Keiningham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.214.88 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 August 2007

Advert

The article still reads like an advertisement, an unsourced one at that. I'll trim it back to a stub if there is no attempt to rectify the situation. --Ronz 21:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you articulate which specific parts read like an advert so we can help edit? You are the one who passed the judgment that it reads like an advert and I don't agree. But I'm willing to help if you will be specific. 68.247.218.98 09:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the responsibility of the editor that added the information to defend it. See WP:V and WP:NPOV. If the editors cannot, the information will be removed. --Ronz 17:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you get an account here so we can communicate easier. --Ronz 17:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I have an account. I have read WP:V and WP:NPOV. Help me out here, because whoever did the latest edits seems to have done more to move toward NPOV. By the way, I didn't add the information on this page, but I am willing to try to improve it. --Elvira100 09:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither HBR link works for me, and there's no other information provided to verify these sources. Anyone want to there might be enough info in this article to make a good guess though. Anyone want to look into it?

I'm not sure we meet WP:N criteria here, but I think the advert tag is more appropriate for now since most of the article is still unreferenced or referenced with the two Reichheld books. It's unclear, but not very important until we meet WP:N. --Ronz 01:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I tried to fix the HBR links. I added a few more references that I found. Let me know if they don't work. I'll try to find a few more references, too. --Elvira100 18:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's much improved, but still short on independent sources, which are needed for WP:NPOV. The "Net Promoter score calculation and interpretation" and "NPS measurement process" sections need independent sources, or otherwise be trimmed down to a few sentences. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ronz: Should be better now. Added links and references. Pulled out mention of originator in opening paragraph (it seemed superfluous). Very few assertions (if any) are not unreferenced by third-party sources. Not sure how much further this can be pushed right now. Elvira100 (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE on Net Promoter research

Copied from my talk page [3]:

The listing of the research I conducted with Professors Bruce Cooil, Tor Wallin Andreassen, and Lerzan Aksoy is incorrectly listed as being "my" research, and provides the appearance that my employer, IPSOS Loyalty, is involved in the research--it is not. Could you have this corrected so that my co-authors are given proper credit? This research is purely scientific, and my co-authors are well-regarded academics.

Additionally, my co-authors and I were recently informed that this research was awarded the MSI-H. Paul Root Award from the Journal of Marketing for the article that represents the "most significant contribution to the advancement of the practice of marketing." This award represents "best paper" from the leading scientific journal in all of management and economics (as measured by the citation index) and represents a significant statement by the scientific community regarding our research into Net Promoter.

Finally, the research reported to support Net Promoter by Paul Marsden and Mark Ritson was not published in any scientific journal--it does not meet that standard and therefore does not represent scientific evidence of a relationship between Net Promoter and firm growth. The only other scientific research into Net Promoter of which I am aware challenges the claims attributed to Net Promoter. These articles are:

Keiningham, Timothy L., Bruce Cooil, Lerzan Aksoy, Tor Wallin Andreassen, and Jay Weiner (2007), "The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in Predicting Customer Retention, Recommendation and Share-of-Wallet," Managing Service Quality, vol. 17, no. 4, 361-384.

Morgan, Neil A., and Lopo Leottte do Rego (2006), "The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction And Loyalty Metrics In Predicting Business Performance," Marketing Science, 25 (5), 426–439.

Pingitore, Gina, Neil A Morgan, Lopo L. Rego, Adriana Gigliotti, Jay Meyers (2007), "The Single-Question Trap," Marketing Research, vol. 19, no. 2 (Summer), p9-13.

I would like to note that my co-authors and I do not care what metrics managers choose to use. We only care about the research presented in our scientific journals, of which the Harvard Business Review (where Net Promoter was introduced) is one. Claims presented in these journals must be able to withstand scientific scrutiny.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Tim Keiningham

--Ronz (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the article slightly, removing the unnecessary mention of who the researchers are, to balance the section per NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Keiningham et al 2007 The Value...

I don't see where this is being used so am moving it here:

• Timothy L. Keiningham, Bruce Cooil, Lerzan Aksoy, Tor Wallin Andreassen, and Jay Weiner(2007), " The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in Predicting Customer Retention, Recommendation, and Share-of-Wallet,” Managing Service Quality, 17(4), 361-384. (available here)

--Ronz (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobehayes self-reference

This is copied from (Bobehayes talk) page:

Bob: I have removed the link on the Net Promoter article to your self-published web page. I wanted you to know there are two reasons for doing this:

1. Wikipedia policy is clear in stating the individuals should not promote or refer to their own writings
2. Policy is also clear that the articles referenced, especially if controversial, should be widely accessible and in independent publications. This reference is really neither.

Please see WP:NPOV for reference. WP:PG also provides a really good overview of the overall policies for page editing.

I can imagine this might be a little frustrating to you (this is the second time you tried to add this reference), but the policies are here to limit linkspam and self-promotion, which would otherwise run rampant and destroy the value of Wikipedia.

-Elvira100 (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)